Why something instead of nothing?

[JPhillips]

Santini said:

[PrivateVoid]

JPhilips:

[JPhillips]

PirateVoid

No I was not speaking to anyone in particular; just giving my own opinion.

Some of us don't understand how others say everything was the result of a random accident. Probability theory, which is based on science, suggests otherwise.

You can argue with me that there is no personal God and I would admit at least you are standing on more solid ground. I am leaning towards the Panenthist view rather than the Pantheist view myself.

[Santini]

PrivateVoid: Why could something have not come from nothing? Merely defining the world in that way (i.e., "nothing comes from nothing") does not mean that it did not once happen outside the universe.

Again, to me, it is no more imaginable that something might have existed forever without a beginning and without an ending than it is that something might have once come from nothing. Yet one of these two scenarios must be true. Which one is true is the question. But since there is no evidence whatsoever to support either, to say that one is "more likely" to be the case than the other is an unsupportable conjecture.

JPhillips: My point is that energy is not "nothing." Just as mass is physical so is energy also physical. Thus by saying that consciousness was made of energy or was born of energy, you are in effect saying that consciousness is physical. I agree that consciousness is physical although I disagree that it came before mass. It seems to me to be an emergent property of highly developed brains.

But what, if anything, came before energy? Maybe nothing. Maybe something else about which we have no clue. Since we have no evidence to support any conjecture about what may be or may have been the case "before" or "outside" the universe, no one can say anything about this question with any degree of credibility.

[JPhillips]

Santini


As far as probability being based on math rather than science, you are right. You are still just playing the semantics game. I have to word what I am trying to say exactly right or else my argument is void, I guess.

Science depends on math to support its' theories and equations. For example, Einstein's theory of relativity is supported by mathematics. His theory that energy equals mass is supported by math. Do You understand this concept? If not, got to the nearest university and ask one of the science professors' what math has to do with science. He can explain it to you better than I can.

Here are your odds of man evolving on earth, not taking into account the odds of the earth accidentally coming into existence and capable of supporting life.

Life from dirt without God: What are the odds?
The machinery of a cell are called protein molecules. The simplest cell in existence has 239 protein molecules. Protein molecules are made up of several thousand atoms, and has anywhere from 124 to 2000 amino acids, the average being 445. In order for these to work they have to be put together just right. Amino acids need to be arranged in exactly the right order if the cell is going to work.

DNA in the instructions for the cell. The protein molecules and amino acids cannot communicate with the DNA without the RNA. An average DNA will contain four billion bits of information.

If you number 10 pennies 1 through 10 and put them in your pocket the odds are 10:1. The odds that you will pull 1 and 2 out in order are 100:1. For the first three to come out in order, 1000:1. The odds that they will all come out in the right order are 10,000,000,000:1. Now we have a simple cell with 239 protein molecules containing 124 amino acids. The odds for that coming out right are 10 to the 137915th power to one, and that is with human assistance. What are the odds that it happened by itself?

10 to the 137915th power

What that means is 137915 zeros after the 10.

I am sure if science could show the possibility of God is 10 to the 137915th power scientists would admit He probably exists based on probability theory (hint - this is sarcasm).

[James S Saint]

IF something effects the physical then it IS physical by definition. The realm of the physical is only distinguished by mutual effect.

And the very definition of "a god" is whatever has absolute control over something and is thus the god of that something.

"God" is thus whatever has absolute control of ALL things, including whatever caused the universe to be created.

Science can NEVER claim that there is no God because it would be claiming that there is no universe or that nothing governs what is and thus all principles in Science become void, including the one that concluded that there was no God.

And you cannot calculate any probability until you know the total number of options of the known possibilities from your ignorance of the exact situation.

[Meleagar]

[Santini]

You're still not getting this, JPhillips.

Perhaps you can do the math for this problem. You don't need to know anything about probability theory to solve it.

What is the probability that I just drew a 2h, 2d, 10s, 4s, kh, jd, ac, 4h, qc, and a 7s from an honest deck of 52 playing cards if I just drew a 2h, 2d, 10s, 4s, kh, jd, ac, 4h, qc, and a 7s from an honest deck of 52 playing cards?

I believe the probability is 1.0, correct?

Do you get it now? Probability doesn't work backwards.

What is the probability that any sequence of ten cards will be selected from a honest deck of 52 playing cards in just that sequence?

Yet one of these highly, highly improbable hands IS drawn every time anyone selects ten cards from a deck of cards.

PS And when any one of these 10-card hands materializes, it doesn't mean that a miracle has occurred, either.

[Meleagar]

[JPhillips]

Santini


What I am not getting and do not care about is what your argument proves, if anything. If you say the chance of us being here is the same as the chance of throwing a whole lot of nuts and bolts and otheparts into a mixer and have a car come out of it, I get it. Yes, it is possible. It could happen.

[Santini]

[PrivateVoid]

Santini:

[Meleagar]

[James S Saint]

[Santini]